ROCKPORT — Four attorneys, members of Rockport’s Zoning Board of Appeals, and project proponents met Dec. 1 via Zoom to continue a review of an appeal brought against a proposed four-story hotel to be built in Rockport Village. This was the second meeting concerning the appeal, and as of Dec. 1, no final decision has been made. The ZBA will reconvene Dec. 9 to again take up the matter.

The appeal, which was first heard by the ZBA Nov. 17, contends the Planning Board abused its discretion and made findings not supported by substantial evidence when approving the project’s site plan last spring.

The 13 appellants, represented by Attorney Kristin Collins, cited concerns about noise, traffic and lighting of the new hotel. They have argued that insufficient details concerning parking or a traffic study were provided when project documents came before the Rockport Planning Board last winter. The Planning Board had given site plan approval for the project in May.

By the end of the Dec. 1 meeting, the ZBA made no ultimate decision to uphold or dismiss the appeal against the hotel project proposed by Stuart and Tyler Smith to be built at 20 Central St. Instead the board decided to continue its review of the appeal on Dec. 9.

On Dec. 1, the ZBA was represented by Leah Rachin, of the Portland-based firm Drummond Woodsum, who recommended board members examine each of the individual claims of the appeals during the course of their deliberations to arrive at “deliberate goal findings and conclusions.”

The standard of review the ZBA was tasked with was to decide if the Planning Board could have reasonably granted approval to the proposed hotel based on the record of information it had before them at the time.

The claims made by the appellants are as follows:

• Parking requirements under the town’s Land Use Ordinance (LUO) were not met:

 ª A 2009 parking study was not properly introduced by or analyzed by the Planning Board when a parking plan for the hotel was approved.

• An insufficient number of spaces was shown to be available in the plan (56 spaces are required under the LUO for the hotel and its two restaurants).

• The Sandy’s Way lot at the rear of 20 Central St. is not on the same lot as the hotel and would be considered off-site parking. 

“Sandy’s Way lot is owned by Shepherd Block Marrianne LLC and Stuart LLC, it is not owned by 20 Central LLC,” Collins said. “So it is not located on the same block and it is not held under the same ownership or lease. The applicant never presented a lease for easement or other parking arrangements... and that might seem like a technicality and it’s a technicality that might be easily addressed by the applicant – they are all the same people underlying all of these LLCs – but you still need a lease agreement.” 

• Architectural standards were not met. 

• The structure must be located and configured in a visually harmonious manner.

• The structure will impede as little as reasonably practical existing scenic views. The hotel would be built on a now-vacant lot offering views of the harbor from Goodrich Park.

• Nuisance: The Planning Board didn’t consider noise and light pollution associated with the hotel, and the project didn’t meet LUO standards for traffic circulation and valet service from 20 Central Street to the former Hoboken Gardens property at the corner of Pascal Ave. and Commercial, also owned by the Smiths and which would serve as an off-site parking lot.

On Dec. 1, the ZBA completed their review of portions of the appeal pertaining to parking requirements and landscaping requirements pertaining to the off-site parking lot at Hoboken Gardens where guest cars would be stored by valets. The appeal claimed that a landscape review of the property should have been requested by the Planning Board.

In a unanimous vote, the Planning Board had made appropriate determinations on the parking plan for the proposed hotel based on the information they had before them at the time.

“I think that record shows that the Planning Board did a lot of consideration and there was much discussion about the number of parking spaces, they considered all the evidence they had...and came to the decision that the requirement for the number of parking spaces was met,” said ZBA member David Cockey.

“They took a heck of a long time sifting through everything many times over in coming up with their decision,” said ZBA member Terri MacKenzie.

When the ZBA chairman, Geoff Parker, and Attorney Rachin were preparing a motion related to the landscaping requirements at the off-site parking lot, Tyler Smith interjected with questions about how the motion would be written.

“A positive vote would say the Planning Board did their job correctly, a negative vote would say they missed the boat,” said Parker.

“Geoff...I can’t tell how this [motion] is related to the last one, Terri had some different language in there before,” said Smith.

“If we were to say that.... That’s an interesting question. It sort of implies... If we say ‘the Planning Board didn’t do wrong – that they did right,’ in ignoring, not ignoring, in deciding that the didn’t need to go to a landscape review, that would by implication indicate that the parking lot was within regulations,” said Parker.

The site at the Hoboken Gardens lot which would serve as remote parking is located behind the portion of the lot where Guinea Ridge nursery is. Currently there are piles of gravel or dirt at the location.

“It’s been presented and judged to be a parking lot by the ZBA based on the plan...if it’s already a parking lot it’s not a change of use and therefore does not trigger a landscape review requirement,” said MacKenzie.

The ZBA then decided to continue their deliberations on Wednesday, Dec. 9, at 6:30, and to begin this meeting with a portion of LiveStream video from February which includes a discussion by Planning Board members regarding the remote parking facility.